Lifeboat Ethics By Garret Hardin And A Modest Proposal By Jonathan Swift

The children In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter play a major role in the Puritan society. With their honest opinions of Hester and Pearl, the children are presented as more perceptive and more honest than adults. Due to their innocence, children are capable of expressing themselves without constraints; there are no laws or regulations that they are bounded by. As an adolescent go through the stages of life and grow older, they begin to be more conscious of the how they act as they are more aware of society and the things that are occurring in the world, creating a filter for their actions. When they remain as the children, on the other hand, are adventurous; they are still exploring the universe that seems to fill with mysteries that are bound to be solved. They tend to attach to the truth and they are not afraid to speak it freely. Children differ from adults in their potential for expressing these perceptions. With their obliviousness to the things that are actually going on around the town, children therefore react differently compared to the adults, who are more knowledgeable. Perceived to be immature, young children are presented as more perceptive and more honest than adults due to their innocence, how they are unaware of the reality and the crimes that are presented in society by the adults enables them to be blithe and not afraid of saying what they feel like. Due to their naivety, when they express what they perceive to be true, they do not get punished,

In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his

In the essay Lifeboat Ethics by Garrett Hardin and the essay A Challenge to the Eco-Doomsters by Walter Benjamin, there are many things I agree and disagree with. Both essays make very good points with facts to back them up. But I can’t help but side with Hardin on his essay Lifeboat Ethics. In this essay I am going to compare and contrast some of the similarities and differences between Hardin and Benjamin’s essays about the aid the United States provides to poor nations all over the world by reducing pollution, controlling population growth, and the dependency of economical imports and exports.

This increases the responsibility of the state for looking after its citizens as the poorer population of the country grows in numbers. Hardin demonstrates this in ‘Living on a Lifeboat’ by examining the rate of reproduction of the poor in comparison to the wealthy. According to Hardin, the population of the poorer classes doubles every thirty-five years, whilst the wealthier classes experience the same growth over a period of eighty-seven years. (Hardin, 1974) In a lifeboat situation, this reproduction rate would mean the poor would be heavily reliant on the income and supplies of the wealthy. Due to this Hardin states that the wealthy must assume that the poor will be self-interested and sharing our resources with them will only be harmful to our own survival. (Hardin, 1974) Why should the wealthy share if they get nothing from the poor in return? They deposit their supplies into a shared collective on the boat and the poor on-board take it without giving anything back. Hardin refers to this as the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and if taken into a real-life situation we are presented with the development of social benefits for the poor - a system in which the rich pay taxes in order for the poor to be financially supported through state benefits, social housing etc. (Hardin,

At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the

Morality in its basic definition, is the knowledge between what is right and what is wrong. In Joan Didion’s essay, “On Morality,” she uses examples to show how morality is used to justify actions and decisions by people. She explains that morality can have a profound effect on the decisions that people chose to make. I think that morality is an idea that is different for every individual based on morals and background.

In “The Parable of the Good Samaritan”, the priest and the Levite fails to act in the name of God, while the Samaritan does by treating the robbed man’s wounds and sending him to an inn. At the beginning of To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout Finch acts as the priest or the Levite than the Good Samaritan. When Walter Cunningham is invited for dinner at the Finch’s house, Scout behaves in a discourteous manner towards Walter and claims that he “ain’t company… He’s just a Cunningham,” (Lee 25). This quote shows how Scout lacks in understanding the discrepancies within people while she should be regarding everyone as her neighbour like the Good Samaritan. The quote also reveals that Scout’s attitudes are rooted from her biased views towards the Cunningham’s.

A Brave New World published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley was about a utopian society in which people were placed in castes because of how their embryos were modified. Little did the author know less than a century later the idea of “designer babies” might be a reality. Designer babies are very similar to Huxley’s idea; a person could be genetically altered before they were born. Unlike Huxley’s book, in which embryos were genetically modified due to government industrial control, designer babies’ destinies are determined by parental control. Although, gene alteration can prevent genetic diseases, predetermining genetic outcomes should be illegal because of its negative effects on society; the effect genes have on each other, and the underwhelming success rate.

Throughout literary history, one main theme most writers favor to focus on is the human condition. The Things They Carried and The Great Gatsby are just two examples of many written in which this theme is present. The Things They Carried, written by Tim O 'Brien, is about O 'Brien telling his personal experiences and stories of the Vietnam War, and how the soldiers are fighting two wars, a war with the Viet Cong and a war with themselves. The Great Gatsby, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is set in the Roaring Twenties as it follows the story of a young man named Gatsby as he tries to achieve his version of the American Dream. Throughout the two novels, one can find that the loss of one 's humanity emerges as one of the main topics they both share. The Things They Carried and The Great Gatsby explore the loss of humanity in the 20th century through facing death, experiencing hardships with the intention of forgetting or bringing back that moment, and upholding one 's reputation.

Can you stand the sight of innocent people getting hurt everyday? In wars, bomb blasts, or even in local or personal issues. They are innocent people who do nothing but help us or they just don 't bother us, just like a mockingbird.…………………………. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Boo Radley and Tom Robinson could both be the symbolic “mockingbird”.

In Garrett Hardin’s essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor, Hardin describes the wealthy population of the world as being in a single lifeboat that is almost filled until buckling while the poor population of the world treads water below. Hardin’s essay gets his readers to feel the natural instinct to survive. The lifeboat metaphor that Hardin uses relieves the wealthy population of their moral obligations to the less fortunate, but in addition, puts all of the blame and cause of the depletion of earth’s resources on the poor. As much as his argument may make sense,

In the "The Modest Proposal," by Jonathan Swift he discusses a solution to poverty in Ireland during the 18th century. Swift’s bizarre, yet well thought out plan for helping families of Ireland, who were in poverty and desperately in the need of money, was fattening children and selling them to the wealthy landowners. He thought that this would be an excellent way for children not to be a burden on their parents but be beneficial. Swift even went on to write a pamphlet telling the parents just how they could fatten their babies and the perfect age and weight for the kids to be before selling them. One of Swift’s friends goes on to give some helpful/ tasty ways that the kids can be cooked before eaten. This does not only financially support Ireland, but it also improves the social, political, and economic problems. Swift didn’t see why anyone in Ireland would disagree with such a brilliant plan that could benefit them in so many ways, except the being eaten of course. Swift even goes on to say that by shrinking the population of kids it would just be less subjects to worry about ruling over and less chaos. Swift’s idea of fattening kids to sell as food to the wealthier landowners of Ireland was one of the most brilliant solutions to solve all of the problems being brought about in Ireland.

Stephen Crane’s short story, “The Open Boat” speaks directly to Jack London’s own story, “To Build A Fire” in their applications of naturalism and views on humanity. Both writers are pessimistic in their views of humanity and are acutely aware of the natural world. The representations of their characters show humans who believe that they are strong and can ably survive, but these characters many times overestimate themselves which can lead to an understanding of their own mortality as they face down death.

In The Moral Instinct, Steven Pinker cites Haidt’s “primary colors” of the moral sense (329). Pinker believes that all moral decisions can be categorized with these primary colors and, though everyone can see these colors, they are prioritized differently by different people. Haidt identifies five primaries—harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity—all of which make up the moral spectrum. These recurring moral themes can be found everywhere from cultural norms to the decisions and beliefs of individuals. Though the themes can be identified in works regarding ethics and morality, they—if applied correctly—can also give insight into the way the author prioritizes the moral colors.

Garrett Hardin’s excerpt from “Lifeboat Ethics” first appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. In this essay, there is a metaphor that rich and poor are very different. I strongly disagree with Hardin’s metaphor even though he is truthful about his beliefs. The metaphor is only being seen in one point of view, when there are multiple ways of looking at it.